College entrance Essay

[Motochika Hatori]

Hey there. This is an Essay I want to use for a college application. I'm looking for critique.

Specifically, I'm looking for critique on:

1) how well is this explained or presented to a layman (you'll see what I mean)

2) Do I make my point clear?

3) The guidelines say "300-500 Words". I'm not looking for an exact word count, but any comments on what could be omitted, or something I could add, would be most welcome.

Aside from that, any constructive criticism is always welcome.




To begin with, differences are a healthy thing for the Human mind. However, when differences begin to create strong and lasting animosity, every attempt should be made to reconcile said differences. This is the plight facing the world of fencing today.

The problems started in the 1950s, with the invention of an electric scoring box and "Pistol grips". These two combined factors meant that even if it wouldn't work in an actual swordfight, if a particular action set off the box, it was good. This gave judges the liberty to work the rules around who set off scoring boxes. The result is that fencing training has become less focused on FENCING and more on cross-training and athleticism. Soccer, weight-lifting and running are all featured at many fencing training camps and augmenting fencing. However, if one steps back and surveys the benefits of each, we find that they actually aren't very effective: 1.Soccer is used to build agility and ability to change direction. On a personal level, I am not fast, but I fence well against faster and more experienced opponents, and the only real difference between me and the people I lose to is experience. However, agility is not all-important, and even the importance it has can still be built through fencing. After all, fencing trains it, so why not just fence to build agility, if that's what you need and get from it? If you're a soccer player, build agility for soccer by playing soccer, and if you're a fencer, build fencing agility by practicing fencing. 2. Weight-lifting builds arm-strength, but again, if muscle is built and stressed by constant extensions, then set up a target and plunk away at it. If you're a weight-lifter, build strength by lifting weights. If you're a fencer, build muscle by FENCING. 3. Running. By far, this the most useful cross-training simply because it's a good Idea to begin with. Soccer and weight-lifting are limited in their practical applications and in actual competition. All three, however, are valuable in their own right, but running is the most helpful. Running helps build cardio, leg muscle, endurance, and burns calories. However, if one practices fencing for long enough, they get all of these benefits, plus they put them in the context of fencing.

Cross-training is good in its own right, but when it leads to athleticism being stressed over the logic which fencing is supposed to be comprised of, there are problems. Fencing is supposed to be a sport of physical chess (to emphasize, one of the leading distrubutors of equipment is named "Physical chess.com") not one-on-one football with swords. And yet, that's what it has degenerated to. Compared to the masters of antiquity, modern fencers have terrible technique. For that matter, more and more fencers are just not being taught how to defend at all and simply streak down the fencing strip whenever they are attacked, accomplishing nothing but drawing the bout out. Fencing is supposed to be a game of attack and defense, and the correct use of each, not just running around swinging swords. It's an art and science, more than just a sport. And yet, it has been taken over by Atheletes who use pure athleticism to win. While being athletic is okay, it isn't FENCING. FENCING is the game of give and take, of logical interaction between the fencers and their weapons to create a touch which would hit one fencer without the fencer scoring the touch being hit, practical in a situation where the swords are sharp.

It isn't so much that either approach is wrong, as Athleticism does seem to have gotten better results, so much as that Athleticism has supplanted fencing, and fencers haven't properly compensated. So, the real answer, in my opinion, is to combine the best aspects of Athleticism and logic. To train the body to where it can be fast and strong and the mind to be the same. Essentially, to train Atheletes to be Fencers and Fencers to be better fencers.


Thanks in advance!

[Shade Kawada]

My first critique is that you've capitalized words such as "Athletes" and "Fencers" when they don't need to be capitalized.

Secondly, instead of listing your points like 1. blah blah blah 2. blah blah blah. You should give each its own proper introduction. "My first point is that..." "Secondly..." "Another aspect of cross-training that I see fencers doing is..." etc. This is an essay, not a list of points.

Thirdly... and this isn't much of a point as it is my opinion... but I like my electric scoring boxes and pistol grips... Plus the game "one-on-one football with swords" sounds amazing. I would play that in a heartbeat.

On second thought, "one-on-one football with swords" may not be getting the point across that you wish to relay. Try saying more what you mean or using a better analogy...

"Compared to the masters of antiquity, modern fencers have terrible technique." Avoid using absolutes like this. There are modern fencers that are masters in their own right. Just look at the ones competing in the Olympics.

On another note, being athletic is a PART of fencing... It is a sport, aka an athletic event... Therefore one should strive to be athletic when preforming it. I can't tell you how many fencers I've beaten that are more skilled than me for the sole reason that I was more athletic then them. I can last longer, my guard is harder to break, my strikes are delivered more quickly, and I can recover and retreat faster then them. All these advantages stem from simply being faster and stronger then my opponent. I'm worried that you downplay being physically fit too much in this essay and that your reader will get a sense that you can be a fat blob and still be a good fencer.

[Kaen Youji]

Before anything else, I'd like to know if this is a formal essay or not. If it's informal, that's fine, but if it's a formal essay, you should probably remove all self-references in it. Typically, you do not reference yourself in formal essay writing.

There's some other stuff I'd like to comment on as well, but it kind of hinges on what form of essay this is.

[Motochika Hatori]

Shade Kawada:

Thanks for the critique. That grammatical critique will go a long way, I think.


Personally, Pistol grips to me are just another grip. I like my French grip, but I respect the unique advantages and disadvantages of each. I just learned with a French grip and like it better. Nor do I have anything against the scoring box, but I don't necessarily favor it, either. To me, it's just an optional accessory to fencing. I respect the right of everyone to use pistol grips if they like, but I don't respect the right of people to use the extra power it affords to turn it into a game of pure Athleticism. It may get results, but it's not FENCING.

Personally, one-on-one football with swords doesn't matter to me either which way, just play it somwhere else that isn't called "Fencing.".

I see your point about the absolute. Thanks for catching that. But, I'm not saying that Modern Fencers are all bad, just that some are. I agree that there are Fencers today who fence just as well as anyone from history. However, when you mention people from the Olympics, I would just like to say that I've watched some Olympic bouts and seen pictures from others of poor technique, bad judgement and sloppiness leading to things that should NEVER happen. Not all Olympic fencers are Jocks who just use Athleticism, but then again, some of them are.

Also, if you look at my last paragraph, I do say that fencers should be moderately athletic, but that's a part of being a fencer. I make a distinction between "fener" and "athelete" for purposes of clarifying my point. Fencing does need to be athletic to a certain extent, but there should be more to it than that, and I view an athelete as someone who trains the body and uses their body as their sole means of getting results. A fencer, to me, is someone who gets results using a combination of mind AND body. It's the fencing-Jocks I'm attacking.

Also, it is possible to be a fat blob and fence pretty well. I've seen some pretty good fencers get their butts handed to them by guys who are a lot fatter than I am. I just think it's all a matter of practice. I appreciate your concern for my over-attacking of athleticism, and I'll definitely go back through and check that out, but at the same time, even if I was a bit too harsh, Fencing is a mental sport. Yes, I'll acknowledge that athleticsm helps, but it's not the end-all be-all of fencing, as the mind isn't either. What I'm arguing against is OVER-use and emphasis of athleticism. If I have room, I'll attack people who aren't athletic enough, too. I just chose to attack the Atheletes due to personal preference.

Also, I want to pm you to discuss fencing, if you're up for it.

Kaen Youji: As the name suggests, it's a college entrance essay. However, it's supposed to be about something related to me, so I would call it a semi-formal writing.

[Shade Kawada]

As one of the more athletic fencers at my club I suppose I took this the wrong way. I jog, I lift weights, and I try to eat healthy... but when I went to fencing club all I concentrated on was technique... It was a combination of these things that made me a good fencer... If I did nothing but practice technique I guarantee the more athletic me would have pwned my out of shape butt.

What I do disagree with is you separating athletes from fencers. Athletes are people who compete in sports or similar physical events. Fencing is a sport. Fencers are athletes. Being faster and stronger is part of being a good fencer. I don't know of any fencer who uses nothing except athleticism, and I'm sure if I did they'd be terrible and the point of this essay would be meaningless.

What I believe is that you're writing this because you've seen people WIN over people you consider to be more skilled simply by being more athletic. That's not called playing football with swords... It's called simply being a better fencer, because honestly, if something works, then why stop? If the other person is more skilled then he should be able to adapt flawlessly. Skill is nothing without endurance, strength, and speed.

Well, that's the other side of the argument...

[Zou ۞]

Technique in fencing, honestly, is NOT difficult to master. From my experience of over a decade in fencing now, I've found that the techniques within the first year alone flowed so easily that quick judgment soon became far more important than technique mastery. It all depended on the select choices each person made in every split second. What sets me apart in a match and allows me to win is my speed. EVERYONE can lunge equally well. There's no one with potential to have an "exceptional" lunge, and no one that can use circle 6 or circle 9 better than anyone else. Not only does it depend on quick judgment to decide which to use and when, but it depends on athletic ability. I am fast. I can lunge faster than most people I have fenced.

They can use the same techniques as me, and a lot of them with the same mastery too. How do I win? I have good instincts and a good physical speed. My instinctive ability to make quick decisions comes from playing OTHER sports. My speed also comes from regular exercise and other sports. I can lunge and retract if I missed or was blocked faster than the other person can retaliate. If I lunge and miss, I'll be four to seven or even more steps back before they can retaliate. That's a matter of speed.

I've seen guys with WAY better tricks and moves than me, and fenced them too. Admittedly, I couldn't beat all of them. Some of them were just overwhelmingly good. Most of them though, I was able to win using a speed advantage. I overcame their skillset, which surpassed mine. Basically, fencing actually comes down to "Moderate technique," "Moderate athletic ability," and "Size." Let's face it. Taller people have the advantage. Being one of the tall people, I know my reach is far superior to someone who's too short.

Oh, and, good fencers really shouldn't be losing to the fat people. Considering that limb hits are no-counts and the only hits that score points are torso hits, a fat person is a pretty generous target.

[Motochika Hatori]

Yes, but what I'm talking about isn't the people who learn technique and use athleticism to augment it. I'm talking about the people who sort of learn it, then use incredibly sloppy form in bouts, leading to all sorts of ridiculous things that should never happen in fencing, and taking all meaning, purpose and intelligence out of the sport. I'll acknowledge that all of the best Fencers will be in very good shape, and probably very good at other sports, too, but they're good at fencing because they've learned FENCING. More than just being fast, they also had powerful minds which could move as fast as their bodies, which they used in conjunction with their body. Technique is unbearably easy, if you practice it, I'll agree with that, and I'll certainly agree that it's not the only factor. Athleticism does play it's fair part. Personally, I'm trying to get into better shape because I want to be faster. But, I'm not doing it because I want to just beat the other guy with a sword. I'm doing it because It will make my fencing more efficient and my body healthier, not because It's my only strategy. Both of you guys are obviously quite athletic, and that's cool. I like athletic and wish I had enough time to get as much exercise as athletic people do. Hopefully, I will in the near future. What I'm saying IS NOT that a bunch of fat people should be the best fencers (although, I've seen some pretty badass fat guys. Seriously. Their parries moved faster than I could see. The hell with their ripostes, you just couldn't hit them.) . What I'm saying IS that the people who never bother to learn good technique need to get their act together and either leave the sport and go somewhere else where they don't need to learn as much technique, or buckle down, do the work, and suddenly become exponentially better. Technique isn't hard, and between two people with equally trained bodies, the one with better technique and a stronger mind will have an enormous advantage.

What I'm trying to say is attacking the people who never learn to defend, lunge efficiently, use efficient footwork, or fence intelligently. I've seen people who DON'T DEFEND. Instead, they just attack into their opponent's attack and use their speed to try and get in there before their opponents attack hits. It usually winds up being a hit-or-miss thing: it either works really well or it doesn't. I see people wave their sword around crazily when attacked, and it usually doesn't work anyway, they get hit, then they attack on the next point and get a point. I'm really just arguing against inefficiency and prioritization of Athleticism OVER good form and logical fencing. You guys obviously aren't idiots. The fact you're on this site proves that. The way you defend your position also indicates that you aren't idiots. I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU. I'm attacking the fencers who get onto the strip, fence like idiots, win because of higher athleticism, and annoy everyone else and make everything boring to watch. Let's face it: a pair of guys charging at each other swinging swords wildly, totally abandoning defense, is BORING. As roleplayers, we know, understand, and apply the finer points of creativity and thought. It's the morons who fence without thought and just use brute strength to win, rather than fencing in an efficient manner.

I'll say right openly that I'm not athletic, and I'm not afraid to acknowledge the fact that I'm a bit chubby, and yes, it definitely impacts my fencing. I've lost count of how many bouts I could have won if I had been in better shape. But, before you discount me as writing this as a way of compensating for the fact that I lose by whining about why I lose, please note that I have specifically stated that being in good shape is GOOD, not BAD, and that I have also said that I am currently trying to get rid of some extra fat and get in better shape, because it does make fencing easier. I have learned from my losses, and am working on what I do not have in order to obtain it, so that I can improve.

As a matter of fact, I also hate the people who just learn theory and technique, then can't fence worth anything because they're out of shape, or what have you. I talk with people every day who talk about martial arts like they're badass, and think that theory makes them invincible. I've seen Fencing, and will readily acknowledge that it's more than just thinking. Personally, I think that some people using more speed in their strategy than others makes things far more interesting. Fencing against a variety of strategies, some athletic, some not so much, is what makes fencing interesting. Otherwise, everything would be totally boring. I could attack the people who just want to look like pictures from old fencing texts just as readily. The difference, and the reason I chose to attack the athletic fencers, is literally a coin-flip. Seriously. I FLIPPED A COIN TO DECIDE WHO TO ATTACK BECAUSE I HATE THEM BOTH. That's all.

I'm not attacking you guys personally, and I'm rather enjoying the chance to debate fencing thoughts in a civil manner with other fencers, who aren't like me. I'm just trying to make sure that you guys know that I'm not attacking you, because you appear to be taking it that way. If I'm mistaken in my gauging of your reactions, I do apologize.

[Shade Kawada]

I'm aware you're not attacking me... but it's as you say. There are some fencers who just abandon all defense and wildly swing and attack like nuts. The thing is, that what you're complaining about shouldn't even be an issue. Anyone they could beat by doing that is a bad fencer to begin with. It's safe to say they won't get much better if they're not going to change, in fact, most people who've taken a year of fencing should be able to easily deal with someone who uses such a strategy. I don't even see why this is an issue...

[Motochika Hatori]

I don't understand it either. It shouldn't work, but it does. I have no idea exactly how, but it does. And that's the point. The people I'm arguing against are the people who act stupid, then get all their touches on pure luck. I see where you're coming from. It's really stupid, and I don't understand why it works, because it makes no sense. But, since the judges seem to let people get away with it, there's not really a whole lot that can be done about it.

It mystifies me, and that's what my Essay is really about. This conversation has helped a lot. It's given me some new thoughts to weave in.